Another Week of Global Warming News, June 16, 2013

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years

This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup

skip to bottom

Information is not Knowledge...Knowledge is not Wisdom

June 16, 2013

co2now gfx skeptisci app gfx


Here's a wee chuckle for ye:

Low Key Plug


My first novel Water was published in Canada May, 2007. The American release was in October. An Introductionto the novel is available, along with the Unpublished Forewordand the Launch Talk(which includes some quotations), An overview of my writing is available here.

A Simple Plea

Webmasters, web coders and content providers have mercy on your low bandwidth brethren. Because I am on dial-up, I am a text surfer -- no images, no javascript and no flash. When you post a graphic, will you please use the alt text field ... and when you embed a youtube/vimeo/flash video, please add some minimal description. Thank you.



P.S. Recent postings can be found in the week archive and the ancient postings can be accessed here, which should open to this.

I notice moyhu has set up a monster index to old AWoGWN on AFTIC.

"There is only one leg on which climate change denial stands: Money."
-Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)


More like this

Really Paul - the Sierra Club? I thought you would be more a Heartland Institute type of guy.

In any case, I think I will rely on evidence, facts and science published in a peer reviewed journal, rather than an opinion piece published on a blog thanks, even if it is the opinion of a PhD student studying paleoclimatology.

Speaking of which, I am currently enjoying the wilds of Queensland with my wife doing some research on wombats. Much better than sitting in an office.

What's a wombat?

He studies ice for quite some time and seems to have a grasp on factors which cause melting and breakup.
He is looking at the data and being straightforward on what he sees. The headline sounds alarmist, but he doesn't come off as a ideological sort. And, hey, the time frame is short so it provides some interest. Especially with arctic temps running low and extent of ice higher than the trend line.

Have fun. Hope you're doing some camping!

Wombat looks like a ground hog.
But quite large.
Are they tasty?

According to Wikipedia you must be on Epping forest to see wombats in Queensland.

Or Richard Underwood Nature Refuge

Sounds like he lives and works where he can see it happen Freddy.

So wikipedia working for you then Paul? But to answer your questions....

Wombats are large burrowing marsupials, and they are a close relative to the koala. I suppose the closest American equivalent would be the groundhog, but wombats are much larger, and can grow to around 35 kgs and an adult can easily kill a predator such as a dingo or fox. There are three species - common, southern hairy-nosed, and northern hairy-nosed.

The common is found along the east coast of Australia and is relatively common. The southern hairy-nosed is found in South Australia, and while still relatively abundant, is in decline. The northern hairy-nosed is found in Queensland, and is critically endangered, with only around 120 individual animals remaining.

Yes, they are quite tasty.

But we are no in either of those two locations - which are the sole remaining habitat for the northern hairy-nosed. We are working at a facility near Gladstone, which has the largest population of captive southern hairy-nosed wombats in Australia. We are doing reproduction research on the southern hairy-nosed as a proxy for the northern hairy-nosed, to improve the current level of knowledge and as a precursor to commencing a captive breeding program for the northern hairy-nosed.

So there - you are now much better educated on wombats than you probably wanted to be.

Careful there Paul, there is nothing remarkable from the NSIDC in that article. I'm sure your sources didn't try to make it seem that way, that would be dishonest now wouldn't it? Some guy said we might be ice free in summer of 2013, and though it is premature to say he was wrong, I would not have agreed then or now that this is/was likely. But what did the NSIDC say? From the article:

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

Just curious Paul, do you get all your science information from blogs and newspapers, or have you ever taken the huge leap and actually read any real science?

You should try it some time. You will be amazed how less stupid you become.

Why mandas, thanks for the kind words.

So, mandas, are you saying what Coby referenced is wrong?
Are you saying the nsidc is not a credible source?

And coby, why would you copy verbatim from the very article I referenced? Which I suppose is a credible statement of current expectations?

And btw, I'm glad to hear from an anti CO2 type that there is nothing remarkable about an ice free arctic by 2030.

I was much more under the impression that arctic ice loss was a major tipping point issue for the agw alarmists among us?

It should be noted that the 2013 ice out information was first posted by coby at the top on this page. And I'm being taken to task for reading it and providing a link to a different opinion.

Now, that's rich.

"...It should be noted that the 2013 ice out information was first posted by coby at the top on this page.,,,,,,"

The original opinion piece was not provided by Coby. It was provided by you at post #1.

"...And I’m being taken to task for reading it and providing a link to a different opinion...."

That's correct. And I will continue to take you to task for providing links to opinion pieces. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one and most of the are full of shit. If you want to be taken seriously, provide link to a peer reviewed journal study.

Paul, it would be so much easier to converse with you if you took the time to express yourself more completely. You leave so much to insinuation and assumption that it comes across mostly as a convenient way to retroactively change your point depending on how people respond.

So, to be clear, absent any explanation as to why you were bringing our attention now, in 2013, to an article written in 2007 discussing a prediction about 2013, it seemed a very safe assumption that you were trying to point out someone's failure. The article is about arctic sea ice, you said it was something "from nsidc". So I quoted material to illustrate that no one from the NSIDC wrongly predicted the total loss of arctic sea ice by 2013 (BTW, I again point out it is premature to evaluate said prediction).

Are you trying to tell us that you were not in fact mislead by some dishonest denier site like WUWT that the NSIDC predicted ice free arctic ocean in 2013 and should now be embarrassed? It does not seem very plausible. If not, please explain why you posted in 2013 a 5 year old article making predictions about 2013.

As for my "nothing remarkable" remark, what constitutes "remarkable" depends heavily on the context. It is remarkable in a global change context that we may have ice free arctic oceans by 2070, let alone 2030. It is not remarkable that someone from NSIDC expressed that possibility in 2007. It is remarkable that a prediction of 2030 no longer sounds shocking but rather very middle of the road a mere five years later.

With that, I must bid you all a good night from the Czech Republic, midnight approaches...

Not I who is first to post this topic.
You will find it first at top of this page -
**The Arctic melt continues to garner attention:**
Approx 8th one down.

So we have officially from Mandas that this is no longer a good source?

For the record coby,
The first piece (from your blog) was noted because it was quite unusual. The second item, from nsidc, was noted as it likely represented the more realistic situation.

I think that would be obvious.


Shall we (I) disregard nsidc information in the future?

"...You will find it first at top of this page - Under **The Arctic melt continues to garner attention:**..."

That is not a post by Coby - that is a list of links provided by H E Taylor, reposted here by Coby. A post is - like yours did - provided by someone in order to demonstrate their position on an issue, or to deliberately direct someone to something, The list - which is provided every week - does neither. On the other hand, your post was a deliberate linking to a particular document, and you did not reference the original link by way of introduction to the discussion point you were raising.

"...So we have officially from Mandas that this is no longer a good source?...."

I have said this so many times that it does not bear repeating, but I will say it again for those who are unable to grasp simple concepts. An opinion piece is worthless as evidence for anything other than as evidence for the author's opinion. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of science related issues, provide the real evidence from a reputable source such as a peer reviewed journal or an official document endorsed by a properly constituted science establishment (note - this specifically excludes advocacy organisations like the SPPI).

"....Mandas....Shall we (I) disregard nsidc information in the future?..."

Why? Are you going to provide some in the future? The link you provided at post #9, despite your claims, was not from the NSIDC, it was from the BBC. How come you can't tell the difference?

Let me make this really simple Paul. Reputable AND primary sources No opinions, blogs or media sources. Do you think you can manage that?

We have then bbc reporting on scientists working in their field of expertise and mandas determines that they are not worthy of discussion on a climate blog open to anyone?

Do I have this right?

**Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.**

Now what do you suppose the response was at this meeting ??
I am sorry professor but we may not listen further because you are not quoting from a peer reviewed paper?

Or do you suppose it's possible they discuss things that may have not been published yet? Or discuss unpublished content in context of other published or unpublished data?

Btw coby no apology necessary.
I guess you've seen it all.

Well I guess that's the difference between you and me Paul.

You believe that everything you read in the newspapers or presented by a media outlet must be true and accurately represents what actually took place. I....... don't.

If I read something that a media organisation states that someone says, I check to see if it accurately reflects what really was said. Paul obviously sees no need to do that, because he automatically assumes that it must be true. So tell us Paul, is that really what Professor Maslowski said, or could he have been misrepresented by a media organisation which may have sensationalised his actual words in order to get people to read? Five seconds to answer..........

Further, Paul also assumes that if a scientist says something, then that must also perfectly represent the considered position of the organisation that he works for. Once again, I ..... don't.

So you keep going the way you are Paul. Believe what you read in newspapers or see on TV. I will stick to what I said in post #11.

And if you want to know why I am so hard on this issue Paul, why don't you do as I suggest and check the primary source. Go ahead - check what was actually said at that meeting. And to help you out since you are so woefully bad at real research, I will give you a head start.

Here is the archive of all the presentations at the meeting:

So, what does Professor Maslowski say? Can you find his presentation? No? That's probably because he doesn't give one. But you can check out this one, by Dr Mark Serreze of NOAA:

Maybe, just maybe, if you watch this all the way to the end you can see what your whole position is based upon - one you obviously dredged up from WUWT or similar denier blog which had also based their whole position on an inaccurate and sensationalised media article. Waslowski does not "tell the Americal Geophysical Union" anything. He takes part in a discussion where he offers an opinion that just about everyone else in the room disagrees with.

So, let me say this again so you get it.


You may actually learn something.

Ok, so Maslowski did present, just wasn't captured on video.
And it seems to parallel what our BBC article stated.

From Tuesday Morning,
Understanding Recent Variability in the Arctic Sea Ice Thickness and Volume - Synthesis of Model Results and Observations
J Whelan, *W Maslowski, J L Clement Kinney, J Jakacki

(also mentioned by Serreze, that Maslowski presented this session in the morning as per the conf schedule)

And just so I am clear, what is my whole position dredged up from WUWT?

Why don't you summarise your position for us, Pauline?

The difficulty you present us with is that you are largely incoherent, although you pepper your nonsense with phrases such as, "cagw alarmist", which gives the impression you use crank blogs as a source for you info.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 25 Jun 2013 #permalink

no thanks, I'll wait.
mandas says I have a position, so I'd like to see if he has it correct.
(incoherent, largely, to those who *assume*)
(btw, I typically use that phrase only after being set upon)
(btw, do you enjoy using paul -ine?)

Pauline, why don't we avoid speculation and argument by making clear statements?

Tell us what your position is. Make a clear argument.

For example, my take on Arctic ice is as follows:
- There has been a long-term trend of Arctic ice reducing in both volume and extent.
- That trend has accelerated over time
- Previous projections for Arctic ice have been conservative, predicting ice-free Arctic by 2050, 2080, or 2100.
- Projections are being revised downwards as it becomes apparent Arctic ice is melting faster than previously thought
- Scientists are agreed on all of the above.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 26 Jun 2013 #permalink

"craig"-troll: all those mentioned scientists get their salaries for alarmist convictions to please IPCC and al gore, they rely only on gut feeling.

re arctic sea ice extent i have educated several times now - with stubborn concrete-brain resistance from you climate truth denier - that old satellite data before 2000 cannot be compared with the ones since 2002 due to technical differences in equipment, more primitive technology before 2000, insufficient calibration of different satellite sensor types, etc.

you warming guys always want to rely on methodological flaws which produce the results you hope and want in order to profile yourself of importtant saviors of mankind in a far distant future: this is so ridiculous and primitive (just narcistic behavior to compensate for an otherwise miserable life warming church pupils have to bear)

when will you start to abstain from cherrypicking all that different kind of things which cannot be compared which you "fit" in your trend-graphs of a hallucinated warming ideology

small hint for you: one half of the earth is the southern hemisphere from where there are most data lacking

Well spoken Craig,
I think the two links I referenced would agree and reinforce exactly that position.

(I see you still enjoy using Pauline. Are you denigrating in your daily face to face interactions as well?)

The trend is as stated by Craig.
Some years above trend, some below.

would you describe the sea ice trend since 2002?

Oh, Craig, btw,
Did you see that on wuwt or some other denier site?

I disagree, Pauline, the two links you provided don't really reinforce anything: one was a blog offering an opinion that stands outside the consensus opinion, the other was a news article repeating another opinion that stands outside the scientific consensus on the issue.

Following on from that, you mention a "sea ice trend since 2002" - thus demonstrating the precise same error that Prof. Maslowski made when extrapolating from a limited data set.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 27 Jun 2013 #permalink

Would you please mention the context of my mention of

The sea ice trend since 2002?


Sorry for the delay, but I have been out in the woods earning a living. You asked me to tell you what I think your position on this is?

You think that scientists are continually making predictions of disaster that turn out to be wrong, and there is disagreement between scientists on these things. This demonstrates that there is no real consensus on the science, and that many scientists make predictions of disaster for the sole purpose of obtaining grant money. Therefore, why should we spend trillions of dollars and wreck the economy when the scientists don't even know what they are on about, and some of them are just being fraudulent. And anyway, any reduction in Arctic sea ice is probably nothing to do with CO2, and is probably just natural variation.

Am I wrong?

Sure thing, Pauline, the context of your linking to two random and not very interesting web pages is your state of denial as to the reality of the current downward trajectory of Arctic sea ice.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Jun 2013 #permalink

craigtroll, it's summer in the arctic

for further info on this phenomenon please look up:

btw, you can see that "summer" is defined and explained in wiki, but not "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE": why is this so, why is "climate science" unable to provide a definition of its most important benchmark, which could be described in wikipedia?

So, in "freddy"'s fantasy-world, "summer" is an annual event that causes an inter-annual decline in Arctic ice.

Do correct me if I've misunderstood your insanity, "freddy".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Jun 2013 #permalink

You should re read Freddy and then my response.
Your response at #38 is not close to context of my question to Freddy.

Thorough, clear response.
My turn now for some r&r. And I'm quite backed up with tasks at the moment.
I will be unable to communicate here for about a week.
I'll respond when I return.

Pauline, your question to "freddy" was incoherent.
However, your mention of the year "2002" as a start date for whatever it is you think is a trend reveals the context quite clearly, as I described.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Jun 2013 #permalink

So...there was no such thing as "Global Temperature" before 28 June, yeah?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Jun 2013 #permalink

Re read Freddy at #30, and see if you can put 2 and 2 together.

craigtroll, i have asked you a simple question (#45) and you, as always with climate church idiots, are unable to answer


because you are such a fool, i give you the answer you are uncapable to give:


Pauline, if "freddy" in #30 can find any properly qualified expert opinion to support his blatantly stupid assertion, then people might want to discuss it.
But he doesn't. It remains nothing more than the raving of an idiot.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 28 Jun 2013 #permalink

Freddy, I just checked what Craig said, and it appears he is right and you are wrong.

There *is* such a thing as "Global Temperature", and the proof of it is that there is an entry in Wikipedia about it:

It says:

here is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month.

So, it appears that "Global Temperature" *is* defined in Wikipedia and that you are wrong if you say it isn't.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 28 Jun 2013 #permalink

vince, read before you write your crap

you, wow and craig provide here again an example about how dishonest the climate church idiots argue. shame on you

But, Freddy, you say there is no such thing as "Global Temperature", but when I look on Wikipedia, it's there, so that proves you are wrong.
There is *definitely* something called "Global Temperature", and I know this because Wikipedia says so.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 29 Jun 2013 #permalink


The original question was posed to Freddy for a reason.

Pauline, having read back over a few of your posts, I suspect you are misusing the word "reason". Virtually nothing you post makes sense. There may have been a fleeting impulse, but it doesn't seem likely there was a reason.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 29 Jun 2013 #permalink

Good grief
Vince, surely you can do better than that?

So, is there such a thing as "Global Temperature"?

And, if so, what is it?

Come on Freddy, show us what you're made of.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 30 Jun 2013 #permalink

Freddy says:


Before 2001, there were no articles on anything in Wikpedia - so what?

vincetroll, i understand your ambition why you want to elicit the impression that you are not intelligent or wise.

that's the reason why you are unable to answer the following questions:

why does phil jones not disclose

a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?

mandas, very poor argument!

does your argument satisfy you? poor moron

"freddy", all three of your questions are answered in the original research, which you have not read.

If you have substantive criticisms of the published work, why not explain in detail which methods or processes you feel are problematic?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Jul 2013 #permalink


"all three of your questions are answered in the original research"

WRONG: nowhere were stations mentioned which had been used for a specific's year global temperature calculation: PLEASE CITE A SOURCE WHERE I CAN FIND THIS

"freddy", provide a reference to the paper you are asking about so we can check for ourselves whether it is properly referenced or not.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 04 Jul 2013 #permalink

Freddykaitroll tells us he cannot find this paper:
and those referenced in it.

Freddykaitroll maintains he is a scientist, and yet cannot find what I can find in 1 minute by going to the homepage of the relevant organisations. This is not the first time this happens, the same was the case when freddykaitroll could not find information about GISTEMP. Perhaps freddykaitroll should go back to his university and demand his money back; clearly they have not taught him basic scientific skills.


long before YOU get a paper, I HAVE IT ALREADY QUITE LONG. stop playing a fool.

in addition, you obviously have reading problems, as the information which of the total set of temperature stations .... etc. (read above, as i am tired to repeat this now for the xxxxx time)

Freddykaitroll, it is clear that if you read the paper, you did not understand it at all. You are impossible to teach, because you clearly are not interested in learning. Just see how you frame your questions. You have decided it must be wrong, and therefore any information to the contrary is filtered out by your brain, because it cannot handle the facts that are contradictory to your belief. I think I know why you 'left' the university: they did not want you there anymore, because you were doing fraudulent research. You removed data that did not fit your beliefs. This is also why you (falsely) believe people like Phil Jones or James Hansen are so secretive: it is what YOU would have done to hide your fraud.

Got you pegged, freddykaitroll!


what you are alluding to is very revealing


how often have you done this? be honest for once



this matrix is nowhere shown by phil jones or others from metoffice/cru and that would have been the answer to my first question, which you idiotically insist to ignore, misunderstand whatever your strange non-scientific position is

the only thing you want is to divert from things which threaten your agw ideology, and this your behavior have nothing to do with science, and is so typical for agw scientology church brothers like you, craigtroll, wowtroll, etc.

you are not sincere, trustworthy, but only cheap and primitively partizan

Freddykaitroll, you are a liar. You do not request that matrix, and anyone reading your questions can see that. Remember that you state "why does...not disclose". You did not ask "is there information available anywhere that shows...". This kind of dishonesty once again shows what a bad scientist you are. Did you really think you can get away with this dishonesty?

I once again got you pegged right: you are a fraud.

P.S.: people wishing to see the whole dataset of the individual stations (to the extent they were allowed to be released) should check the MetOffice homepage. It's there, including a FAQ that will go way above freddykaitroll's head or will with certainty be misinterpreted. Consider that a prediction.

marco, YOU are dishonest because you intentionally misinterpret my first question. in addition, the rest of your utmost incompetent text is a shame for someone who wants to be perceived as a scientist. whatever you say to divert from the content of my first question, YOU ARE NOT RELATING TO THE CONTENT. I repeat that i want to see a matrix like this:


N = no, Y = yes, U = unavailable

it is certainly no secret to mention which stations have been used to calculate a mean land surface temperature for a specific year


Freddykaitroll, your first question is:
"why does phil jones not disclose a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?"

The answer to that question can never be "here is the matrix that shows which stations have been used to calculate a mean land surface temperature for a specific year".

Oh, and the information *is* available. It will take you some time to make the matrix yourself, but Phil Jones and company are not there to do your own homework.
Here you go:

Why are you so incompetent that you could not find this yourself?

marco, poor narcistic semantics to maintain your face, but no substance. you admit that the matrix does not exist and I should construct it myself. strange argumentation!

who is calculating global mean temperatures? phil jones or me?

Scientists know how to ask questions the proper way to get the answer they want. You asked a question and then demanded an answer to an unasked question. This is bad science!

The answer to your unasked question is that you can make the matrix yourself but that it is not needed to calculate global mean temperatures. So, there is no need for Phil Jones to make such a matrix. The answer to your original question is that the question is poorly phrased, since the link I provided shows that Phil Jones does NOT hide the station data that is used.


If you want to check Jones' work yourself, "freddy", then all the data is available for you to use.

The matrix you would like to see would be a product of the Met office, not Jones, as he has used data series that the Met Office has quality-controlled.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 06 Jul 2013 #permalink

Freddykaitroll really just can't help himself, showing what an idiot he is at every possible turn. On deltoid he's already been on all caps for several days. His empty threats of contacting US congressmen remain a source of hilarity for all, and he just doesn't get it at all.

marcotroll. your abominable text will not help you. you are and will also be in the future a loser, poor guy without any knowledge in meteorology and climate, and no clue whatsoever of how "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is calculated.

Freddykaitroll does not realise he is talking about himself. One almost wonders how such a clueless person with such a foul mouth like freddykaitroll functions in the real world.

i am a hundred thousand times more succesful in life than you, marcotroll, and you wonder. yes, you wonder because you don't understand the world. that's the reason why you are NOT a multi-millionaire like myself, can't do every day whatever you want, like me. you are a tiny loser with a big wide-open mouth. but the junk which comes out of your mouth is irrelevant.

Freddykaitroll is such a sad little bugger; do you really think we fall for your lies? Have you not learned yet that we see right through you?

Multi-millionaire? Monopoly money isn't real money, freddykaitroll !

marcotroll, you demonstrate again what a mean, self-deceiving person you are, every single word i said about myself is true and you are a liar

freddykaitroll really can't help making a fool of himself. But if this self-deception makes you feel better, go ahead. It remains a source of great hilarity for us, freddykaitroll !

marcotroll, you behave more and more like passed-away wow

therefore i pose here the hypothesis (if you know what this is, you moron) that you are sockpuppet wow

ps: the value only of my preferred residence is about 20mio US$, fuckwit, poor envier

you are just so mean because you are without any success and significance in life, only being a cheap green activist like so many other deranged individuals from greenpiss, world watchdog fund etc., with narcistic problems

why would I be envious of anyone who denies reality? Who cannot write more than 5 comments without throwing in several insults? Who feels the need to use multiple aliases? Who gets repeatedly slammed with facts, and then runs away to another blog to repeat his stupidity? You, freddykaitroll, are one of the saddest human beings I have ever encountered. Even among the poorest Africans one will have to search long to find someone with the same vicious behaviour as you display. The last time I saw such sad behaviour I was looking at an islamist who just had his religion thoroughly thrashed. You find yourself in great company, freddykaitroll.

marcotroll, your opinion about me is completely irrelevant. you constantly evade the flaws of the agw climatology church and get fits of hatred and anger because you sense that you are in a negative spiral down to dissolution of your ideology movement of green socialism. poor idiot, why do you waste your time with such lies

Why are you talking about a "church", "freddy"? Is religion your thing?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 08 Jul 2013 #permalink

freddykaitroll, the only one showing fits of hatred and anger is you. I knew you were in denial about AGW, but being in denial about your own behaviour is a quite solid sign of a major mental disorder.


you said -
I think your (PaulinMI) position on this is:

that scientists are continually making predictions of disaster that turn out to be wrong.
**(generally agree. specifically to run-a-way temperature increase in a logarithmic response property, the scientists have sought tipping points and amplifications to make the case that just are not appearing))

there is disagreement between scientists on these things.
**(generally no. the disagreement appears to be with magnitude, both between scientists and with the actual data. It seems all are aware that CO2 can increase temperature.)

This demonstrates that there is no real consensus on the science, and that many scientists make predictions of disaster for the sole purpose of obtaining grant money.
**(generally no, as above, although easy to observe the behavior toward the scientists who don't advocate strongly enough or disagree, even in a minor way with the IPCC, so fairly obvious many must "go along to get along")

Therefore, why should we spend trillions of dollars and wreck the economy when the scientists don’t even know what they are on about,
**(generally agree. While there is an observable temperature increase since 1850, how much of it is from human CO2? and why is it smaller (much smaller?) than predicted?)

and some of them are just being fraudulent.
**(fraudulent is a strong word, but pushing the expected outcomes due to preconceived notions and group think is rather obvious to the casual observer. And more obvious as the earth response unfolds.)

any reduction in Arctic sea ice is probably nothing to do with CO2, and is probably just natural variation.
**(generally no. Arctic ice behavior is responding to the observed change in temperature)

marcotroll, what a nonsense

".... blah blah blah ....... but being in denial about your own behaviour is a quite solid sign of a major mental disorder ..."

first of all: you are no medical doctor, therefore you are totally incompetent to define a medical diagnosis for a patient. formulating a medical diagnosis requires also a careful investigation by a medical doctor, and can never be accomplished seriously on the internet, MORON!!!!

your behaviour shows that you are a very poorly educated person who wants to be more than he is. you want to play an expert and a judge on several stages, but you are only a mean, low, angry and hateful idiot.

Pauline has no idea what it's talking about:

1/ Gibberish. I just searched the IPCC AR4 report for "runaway temperature increase" and it isn't in there. "The scientists have sought tipping points" doesn't even mean anything.

2/ More gibberish. What does " the disagreement appears to be with magnitude...with the actual data" mean? Nothing.

3/ What behaviour? Pointing out that Spencer is horribly wrong? That's how science works. If Spencer doesn't want to be wrong, he can improve the quality of his research.

4/ It's not smaller than predicted. The estimation of the forcing per doubling of CO2 has barely changed in over 100 years. That points to a pretty good original prediction. As for investing in renewables "wrecking the economy", you didn't disagree with that, therefore you subscribe to the biggest furphy of all time. Here is a demonstration that the opposite is true:…

4b/ Mann's work has been replicated over a dozen times, with people using his data and people using entirely different proxies. The fraud was conducted by those unqualified, ignorant, and dishonest individuals who published dodgy, fake, and plagiarised research in their failed attempts to prove Mann wrong. And you fell for it, you idiot.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 09 Jul 2013 #permalink

freddykaitroll has another temper tantrum. I wonder whether he is looking in a mirror every time he writes one of his diatribes...

Goober Thomas,
Keep deluding yourself as the data rolls on.

What is the c in cagw?

I just searched the IPCC AR4 report and couldn't find any mention of any "cagw".

Where did you get this "cagw" from, seeing as it doesn't exist in science?
Crank blogs on the internet again?
You actually fell for crap written by the university dropout who worked as a TV weatherman and now posts scientifically-illiterate idiocy on his crank blog?

And you're calling *me* "goober"?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Jul 2013 #permalink


i like the complete withdrawal of arctic sea ice, as you can much better exploit oil and gas reserves, tourism if better enabled "The North Pole Seafarer Certificate" is much easier and without danger available, etc etc

i welcome any new record of arctic sea ice reduction, however i am pretty sure that we will face a new ice age soon, that's at least the prognosis from my gcms program.

**I just searched the IPCC AR4 report and couldn’t find any mention of any “cagw”.
Where did you get this “cagw” from, seeing as it doesn’t exist in science?**

Glad you agree then, with cooler heads, that is (no pun intended). If it's not a serious situation, then there is nothing to worry about at this time, as the data clearly show.
thanks for your support

Pauline, what kind of an idiot are you? You can't come on here and play with a ridiculous strawman and expect to get away with it.
The fact "cagw" is some sort of invention by science-illiterates, parroted by other science-illiterates, is entirely irrelevant to the reality of climate change.

CO2 is increasing, humans are responsible, increased CO2 will increase the amount of heat retained on earth, with all sorts of consequences, including among many others:
- changing climates
- increased sea levels
- acidifying the sea

The grown-up professionals understand there will be an economic consequence for having to relocate agricultural operations, abandon fisheries, and defend infrastructure from the rising sea.

The mindless twits just carry on parroting absolute garbage they've read on crank blogs on the internet. You're one of those twits.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jul 2013 #permalink

Like many others, you've proven that you're unable to recognize reality.

You've got all the talking points memorized quite well.

As far as idiots, you are, apparently, a useful one.

Maybe you can describe what it's like living with an exponential expectation in a logarithmic world?

I don't have to explain anything, Pauline, *you*'re the one who has been exposed parroting nonsense you've gleaned from crank blogs and defending your nonsense with logical fallacies an average 12-year-old would be too embarrassed to try out..

You can always tell a demented twit as soon as they start typing rubbish like "cagw".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jul 2013 #permalink

craigtroll, your level of ignorance is alwyas very revealing :

most agw hysterics know what you don't:


this term reflects the totally exaggerated hopes and expectations of a totally ridiculous heating of the earth's atmosphere as calculated by fraudulent fllawed computer games, called gcms, and hysterically shouted to an intimidated public by the cagw pupils hansen, jones, mann, al gore, and many second row supporters of this rotten ideology like you.

take your lesson now and try to learn


Wrong again.
When "scientists" make predictions, they actually are required to materialize.
Observing reality does not require explanation.

"freddy", I just checked Wikipedia - there is no entry for "cagw", which doesn't surprise me - "cagw" is a meaningless term popular among morons and crank blogs.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Jul 2013 #permalink

Pauline, look what I saw in the new this morning:

Researchers in 24 countries working for the last seven years have confirmed the findings of the famous 1998 "hockey stick" graph.

The graph showed global temperatures over the last thousand years, and how the warming in the last century was unprecedented.

The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, is based on 511 climate archives from around the world. All the data has been freely released.

It also dismissed the often-quoted "Medieval Warm Period" or "Little Ice Age" as local temperature fluctuations that had no global impact.

Yep, as I suspected: the scientists were right all along, while the cranks on the internet were wrong.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Jul 2013 #permalink

Hey, Goob,
Look what I saw here!

All the same information for the time period of interest.

What's a crank blog?

I'll give you a hint: if a blog hosts articles about "cagw", articles about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proving the greenhouse effect is wrong, ludicrous conspiracy theories involving a global scientific fraud, or anything written by Christopher Monckton, it's a crank blog.

And you can tell when somebody has been getting their misinformation from a crank blog: they start parroting garbage such as "cagw", "fraudulent" climate science and so forth. Like you.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Jul 2013 #permalink

I think I specifically declined to use the word "fraudulent".

Which misinformed crank or crank blog said this ??
. . . The Climate Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To Save Humanity . . .

Re tipping points.

Here they go again, no, here they continue.
You really can't make this stuff up.
My head explodes just trying to figure out how they dream this stuff up. I mean, how does this appear on ones radar?
A basic economics education would do so much for these loons.

You know, it just dawned on me why we're seeing an explosion on the sales of depends. ( that's diapers for adults, if you're not from the states)

All these panty wetters are pulling them off the shelves just so they can function day to day.

I wouldn't know, I assume that line didn't appear in the IPCC AR4 report?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Jul 2013 #permalink

Here's a tip for free guys. It's one that I have provided over and over and over and over and over again, but who knows, one day people might take notice.

If you are worried about the dross that is posted on crank blogs, and even if you are unable to determine what constitutes a crank blog, bypass the problem. Only reference real science written by real scientists published in real journals.

Problem solved.

craigtroll, as you write also on deltoid you can inform those who wait for my reactions thre that bollocks moron tim has banned me without notice

i would have liked to tell tim that he is an arselick, you know etc etc

ps: was nice there to upset you and the other climate ignorants for some time